Hi, Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite? I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it acceptable way? -- Simon Atanasyan
Hi Simon, We have been converting object files to yaml files and using that as inputs. PECOFF uses obj2coff for some of the tests. I think llvm-mc should also work, I am not sure if there is a difference in terms of functionality in the Mips integrated assembler compared to llvm-mc ? Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 1/10/2014 1:47 AM, Simon Atanasyan wrote:> Hi, > > Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite? > > I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small > MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single > test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it > acceptable way? >-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation
On Jan 10, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote:> Hi Simon, > > We have been converting object files to yaml files and using that as inputs. PECOFF uses obj2coff for some of the tests. I think llvm-mc should also work, I am not sure if there is a difference in terms of functionality in the Mips integrated assembler compared to llvm-mc ? >If there is, that’s a really bad bug in one or the other. The primary intended use of llvm-mc is for testing the integrated assembler without having to call clang. -Jim> Thanks > > Shankar Easwaran > > On 1/10/2014 1:47 AM, Simon Atanasyan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite? >> >> I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small >> MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single >> test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it >> acceptable way? >> > > > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Hi Shankar, Thanks for the answer. Ideally, there should be no difference between Mips integrated assembler and llvm-mc. In fact, as far as I know, the small difference exists. Some pragmas are implemented in the integrated assembler and are not implemented in llvm-mc. Fortunately that does not affect lld testing. On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote:> Hi Simon, > > We have been converting object files to yaml files and using that as inputs. > PECOFF uses obj2coff for some of the tests. I think llvm-mc should also > work, I am not sure if there is a difference in terms of functionality in > the Mips integrated assembler compared to llvm-mc ? > > Thanks > > Shankar Easwaran > > > On 1/10/2014 1:47 AM, Simon Atanasyan wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite? >> >> I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small >> MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single >> test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it >> acceptable way?-- Simon Atanasyan